Previous 10 / 38 Next

CAAMAÑO VALLE v. SPAIN JUDGMENT incapacity should be ordered and on what other measures provided by law should be undertaken. A decision on a declaration of incapacity shall never be made without first securing, with the agreement of the relevant court, an expert medical opinion. 2. Where an application for a declaration of incapacity requests the appointment of a person or persons to assist or represent the incapacitated person and to look after him, the next-of-kin of the allegedly incapacitated person, the allegedly incapacitated person himself if there is sufficient reason, and such other persons as the court considers appropriate shall be heard regarding the matter. 3. If the judgment on incapacity is appealed against, the evidence referred to in the preceding paragraphs of this Article shall also be secured by the second-instance court.” Article 760 “1. The judgment declaring a person’s incapacity shall specify the extent and limits of that incapacity, as well as the system of guardianship or tutelage to which the incapacitated person is to be subjected, and shall rule, where appropriate, on the need for confinement, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 763. 2. In the case referred to in paragraph 2 of the preceding Article, if the court allows the application, the judgment declaring a person’s incapacity or the prodigality [prodigalidad] shall indicate the person or persons who, under the law, are to assist or represent the incapacitated person and look after him. 3. The judgment declaring a person’s prodigality shall determine the acts that the prodigal [pródigo] cannot perform without the consent of the person who is to assist him.” Article 761 “1. A finding of incapacity shall not preclude the possibility of new proceedings being instituted, in the event of new circumstances, for the purpose of terminating or modifying the scope of the incapacity already established. 2. The persons referred to in Article 757 § 1, those exercising guardianship or who have custody of the disabled person, the Public Prosecutor’s Office or the disabled person himself shall be requested to initiate the proceedings referred to in the preceding paragraph. If the incapacitated person has been deprived of the capacity to appear in court, he must obtain express judicial authorisation to act in the proceedings on his own behalf. 3. The mandatory evidence referred to in Article 759 shall be adduced ex officio, both during the first-instance proceedings and, where appropriate, in the secondinstance proceedings. The judgment to be delivered shall rule on whether or not the declaration of incapacity should be revoked, or whether or not the extent and limits of the incapacity should be modified.” 8

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Caamaño Valle v. Spain

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the rescission of voting rights for disabled person under guardianship based on individualized assessment is legal under Article 3, Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Alleged Acts: Applicant, Ms. Caamaño Valle, was the mother of a young woman with an intellectual disability. Around her daughter's 18th birthday, the mother requested that her daughter be placed under her legal guardianship (partial guardianship under Spanish law), but explicitly asked that the daughter not be deprived of her right to vote. Spanish courts placed the daughter under guardianship but also removed her voting rights, finding that she was "highly influenceable and not aware of the consequences of any vote that she might cast." The Spanish courts determined that the daughter lacked sufficient mental capacity to make a free and informed electoral choice, and that allowing her to vote would not serve the purpose of the democratic process.

Procedural history: Mother filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights, alleging that the disenfranchisement violated her daughter's right to vote under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Summary: The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in Caamaño Valle v. Spain that Spain did not violate the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to vote) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in the case of her daughter, M., who has an intellectual disability.

Conclusion: Spain's disenfranchisement of the applicant's daughter did not violate the European Convention. The judgment upheld the removal of voting rights for a person with an intellectual disability where domestic courts had conducted an individualized assessment and found that the person was incapable of understanding the electoral process and susceptible to undue influence.

Legal Issue(s)

Accessibility

Applicable Law(s): Article 3, Protocol No. 1, and Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Region: Europe and Eurasia

Country: Spain

Language of Decision

English

Court: Human Rights Court

Election Type: Parliamentary

Date of decision: Aug 11, 2021

Geolocation

Latitude: 48.5964

Longitude: 7.7742

: Geolocation

Link: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-210089%22]}

Primary Documents

CASE OF CAAMAÑO VALLE v. SPAIN.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Caamaño Valle v. Spain

Primary Documents

Notifications